Acquiescence

[AgeingGrace]

Not sure whether this counts as a feminist discussion, but I'm giving it a try. I mentioned on another thread that, after seeing last year's TV programme about black-cab rapist John Worboys, I realised he 'had' me, too. I rang the helpline and the police were brilliant - they confirmed my story and discussed the case as much as I wanted to.

Bizarrely, the discovery was actually helpful to me. I'd been struggling with "denial of abuse" issues so, for me, this single episode (which I barely remember) represented all the other half-remembered and anxiously dismissed incidents of abuse that kept me questioning myself. I now accept that I have been more seriously abused, and more often, than I can consciously recognise. This denial is part of the issue I wish to discuss.

John Worboys sexually assaulted upwards of 400 women: probably hundreds more. His method was always the same - a little story, a little drinky that was drugged. Now this is what bothers me: up to 700 of us accepted that drink.

We trust London cabbies, sometimes literally with our lives. Worboys abused that position of trust. But - still! A cab driver gives you a drink, and you don't smell anything fishy? I bet none of us would have smiled and said "cheers" if an illegal minicab driver had done it. Not a single one of us rang the police, or the taxi office, to say "Driver number XXXX has just done something weird."

We trusted hansom cab drivers - rightly so. But why did we allow this trust to override our common sense? We all registered that this was "odd" behaviour, so why didn't we just get the hell out of there and press Dial? What happened to our natural alarm bells?

Answering for myself, I have to assume I was so deeply programmed to TRUST A MAN IN A POSITION OF HONOUR that I had no self-preservation instincts to go with that. In my case, this is the factor that led to my putting up with abuse in many situations. I was also, as mentioned, extremely willing to forget, deny, tell myself I'd got it wrong, etc, etc. I can trace this directly to my parental background. Did all 400 of Worboy's passengers come from families like mine?

How did Worboys know which women to trick?

I asked the cop how come so many women had bought his story. He said he wished he knew that - as more & more evidence came to light, they found it hard to believe he was getting to first base as easily as he did.

As some of you know, I'm committed to helping women in abusive relationships re/gain a sense of their own right to respect and safety. Most of you know at least something about the dynamics of abuse. Many people are conditioned to consider themselves less important than others; it's common for a woman to count herself less than a man. But 400 Londoners, each with enough independence to be getting a cab on her own at night ...? That's a lot!

If self-abandonment and self-denial are THAT prevalent amongst women, then feminism has a far bigger problem than I ever suspected.

I'm not sure if anybody's able or willing to pick this up - it's more of an emotional/psychological angle than this board's usual. It's both personally and politically interesting to me - what do you think?

that's how I read the sentence SaF. That if the victim could only empathize with the rapist a bit more, then she wouldn't feel as violated and that then, it might not even have to be classed as rape.

Fucked up.

Okay, back to this now and have been thinking about your questions Dittany and also the subsequent post about muggings.

Dealing with this last point first, muggings are generally perpetrated by stranger assailants, but as has been correctly asserted, often go unwitnessed. This is often an under-reported crime and without accurate descriptions, suffers from low detection rates even when reported. Stranger rapes, if reported quickly and forensic evidence is intact, have relatively high detection and conviction rates.

The analogy that probably fits better is when theft without violence occurs between people who have an existing relationship. In a case of theft, it is necessary to prove that a person didn't think the item was a gift and that there was an intention to permanently deprive the victim of the item. This can be very difficult to prove if the thief alleges that the item was given freely, there is no corroborating evidence or witnesses and it is one person's word against the other.

I agree that non-stranger rape is similarly horrendously difficult to prove, but the actual standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubt - is very high and I don't think of itself, it is heightened further, in rape trials. A jury is presented with evidence and directed by the judge accordingly. Where I think there is huge risk of bias and prejudice is within that Judge's directions and also the Jury members' own views and prejudices about what constitutes rape. A Judge who points out for example that the law puts the onus on men to gain express verbal consent (since 2003) and refers to evidence and admissions that this was not established, is directing the jury based on evidential factors alone.

Victim testimony is of course witness testimony, but in law this can never carry the same weight as independent witnesses or incontrovertible evidence. Much as I would like to see a better conviction rate and a changed societal perception of rape, I could never subscribe to a presumption of guilt within our criminal justice system, for any crime.

I agree that when educating young people, sex and rape should be treated as separate subjects and to my knowledge, they are. The point I was making about the general teaching about sex and relationships in schools was that the ethos of it still tends to be about negative connotations - teenage pregnancy, STIs, consent issues, porn etc. and perhaps not enough about the positive aspects of mutually fulfilling sex.

Through my work, I have also advised schools about taking a more holistic approach to sex and relationships, because if there is a culture of "shag bands" being sold and porn being viewed on ipods in the recreation areas - and this is tolerated, the classroom messages might as well not happen. If senior leadership teams don't support female teachers who are being sexually harrassed by older students, or if teachers don't clamp down on nasty misogynist remarks made by boys in ther classes, this further diminishes the message and looks like the school is merely paying lip-service to healthy and respectful sexual relationships. The whole culture needs to pervade the school, as it should in any organisation.

What I also noticed however, was how much work was required on the female students' attitudes. In groups, their views were profoundly depressing and I see them mirrored on Mumsnet so frequently, by younger (or conversely much older) posters. Hence my belief that educating men is only half of the job. Those girls will be on juries one day .

Can I clarify what you understand by the term mugging Dittany as there is no specific offence of this in law?

I didn't know that victim testimony counted for less than other witness testimony in law either. You learn something every day.

How does that work when there are a lot of victims eg a bombing, if more than one person has seen the criminal but they are all victims?

Just also wanted to chuck in here that these discussions often end up about the so-called greay areas, where women "maybe" didn't give the right "signals" and men weren't able for whatever reason to "interpret" those "signals" and so on.

Fact is that most rape has nothing grey area about it - if you read the threads on here where women have told their stories the theme is - I said no - he ignored me - I said no - he punched me - I said no - he threatened me - and so on and so on. Accompanied by the vast majority of women saying that they did not report it as they felt there was no point. Women know the rape myths, they understand which cases will be taken seriously and which will be seen as "grey area" when in fact both the woman and the rapist knew damn well what was going on.

Which is what is so frustrating about all of this.

Threads on here with women asking for advice where their DHs have done unwanted things to them while they slept, or were too drunk to say no, or were crying. And often there are lots of responses including many saying that maybe he misread the signals / what did you expect / how was he to know and so on and so forth. If many women believe that things that are quite clear cut are actually "grey area" then what hope is there?

WhenwillIfeelnormal, I agree with everything you have said.

The only thing I would like to know more about is the statement at the end of your last post

What I also noticed however, was how much work was required on the female students' attitudes. In groups, their views were profoundly depressing

Dittany I am trying to have a reasonable debate with you and others on this thread.

I am not nitpicking. There is a huge difference between theft and robbery, but the term mugging is often used as an umbrella definition for very different offences. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page about this term. Since you won't tell me what you mean by "mugging", I'm going to assume you mean street robbery with violence.

You and other posters mentioned mugging as analagous. I am saying I don't think street robbery with violence is analagous to rape perpetrated by men who are known to the victim - which we can all presumably agree, make up the vast majority of rapes; reported and unreported.

Street robbery with violence can be proved in a number of ways without witnesses - injuries sustained and materially, the stolen property being found in possession of the suspect. It is much easier to prove robbery by a stranger, just as the offence of rape is easier to prove when the assailant is unknown to the victim.

Proving any crime where there are conflicting accounts about consent, no corroborating evidence (either human or factual, such as forensics or documentary) is always going to be more difficult. In this sense rape is no different to theft within relationships, where it becomes impossible to prove that the item in the suspect's possession was not a gift made by the victim.

I am therefore trying to highlight that rape is not the only offence that requires independent evidence, in order to mount a prosecution and get a conviction.

However, by highlighting just narrow areas of my posts today, I think you might be missing the overall tone of what I am saying, but that it is your prerogative.

SQ I'm not sure I understand the bombing analogy, since there is usually a plethora of hard evidence and numerous witnesses to the explosion itself.

WRT your other points, I don't think there are any "grey areas" and that men absolutely know if a woman is consenting to sex. On another thread recently, we were discussing the signals a woman gives, if she is participating and consensual, but I still think it is incumbent on a man despite positive signals, to check with a woman whether penetration is what she wants. I don't think that men should only rely on "signals" at all.

It was the thing about victim evidence not legally having as much weight as independent witnesses. I haven't heard that before and was wondering how it would work.

Say for eg if someone breaks into my house and attacks me and DH, how much weight does our evidence carry as we are both victims, compared to eg my neighbour who sees him running away. Why is the neighbours evidence more credible, how does it work in practice about different types of witness having different levels of credence (? is that a word) apportioned, that sort of thing. Do you have any links about it?

The grey area stuff gets on my nerves. Why so many people want to pretend that men don't know when they're raping someone is beyond me.

It only applies to situations where it is one person's word against the other. Not to trivialise this at all, but it is much the same with traffic accidents, where both drivers exchange details and leave the scene, only reporting the accident thereafter and neither being able to offer independent witnesses. If the collision is head-on and there is no physical evidence left (e.g. tyre marks) it is often difficult to prove who crossed the central boundary marking.

If the burglar assailant is unknown to you, there is physical evidence of breaking and entering, you have physical injuries consistent with your account of the weapons or violence used and the items stolen are found in the burglar's possession, you wouldn't need independent evidence. Your neighbour's testimony would be helpful, but not essential.

If however, you welcomed a friend into your house and she stole an item of your property, you reported the crime and when arrested and questioned, she claimed that she did indeed have this item, but you had given it to her that day as a gift - and there was no written evidence or independent witness testimony to suggest that you had/hadn't done so, then in all probability, the police would not be able to charge your friend with theft, since they could not prove that your friend intended that theft, or to permanently deprive you of the item.

It would be your word against hers.

But aren't many muggings carried out without actual violence being used? So it is not robbery with violence?

For example, in the case of someone being told to hand over their mobile phone. 3 young men approach that person, say "that's a nice phone, give it here" and stand there expectantly waiting for it.

The victim hands it over, because there are 3 of them and we all know a mobile phone isn't worth risking being beaten up and injured perhaps seriously, for. But at no time has the victim been threatened with actual violence.

What crime is that? Can the defendents claim that they thought the victim was kindly giving their phone to them?

Yes but women get raped by men they don't know and these men still claim (preposterously) that the women agreed to casual sex with them.

And juries pretend to believe them and let them walk free to rape again.

Mugging = robbery.

Robbery is basically theft with force or threat of force.

There is no difference in English law between the evidence of a victim who is a witness and an "independent" witness.

When considering the likelihood of a successful prosecution CPS would consider whether there was independent evidence for any crime. Independent evidence (I would have thought fairly obviously), makes a conviction more likely. SAF says, the evidence of someone being in possession of something when there is no realistic path to them having it is independent evidence.

In terms of the practical issues that rightfully get in the way of a successful prosecution I think the theft by "friend" is the closest analogy (to acquaintance rape). Because you are looking at an act (receiving goods/having sex) that the victim could have reasonably consented to. Without other evidence, from a jury's perspective, it becomes one person's word against another. Reasonable doubt is a high barrier to get that through if the rapist hasn't said something in interview that shows his true colours.

• As SAF says

Yes it is SaF

The thing is, most people aren't aware that the conviction rate for rape is quite so low and that so much of it is not even reported.

That's one of the reasons why we generally don't have vigilantism, because people aren't aware that there is absolutely no justice for rape (or very little chance of it).